from the nothing-civil-about-this-forfeiture dept

A federal judge has just ordered the government to return $167,000 it took from a man passing through Nevada on his way to visit his girlfriend in California. The officers really wanted that money, too. They used two consecutive stops to jerry-rig some probable cause… even though at that point they thought they were only dealing with $2000. From the original stop forward, the entire situation was deplorable, indisputably showing that everyone involved was more interested in taking (and keeping) a bunch of cash than enforcing laws or pursuing justice.

The order is a jaw-dropping read. It begins with the flimsiest of "reasonable suspicion" and heads downhill after that. Straughn Gorman was driving across Nevada in his RV when he was pulled over for a "left-lane violation" -- driving too slow in the passing lane. (This itself isn't actually a moving violation, but the Supreme Court's Heien decision has ensured that law enforcement needn't be slowed by actual knowledge of the laws they're supposed to be enforcing.)

This lead to some questioning, because reasons:

Upon request, Gorman produced his license and registration and told Monroe that he was traveling to Sacramento, California to visit “his chick.” Id. at 60:9-61:5. Gorman told Monroe that his girlfriend lived in downtown Sacramento, but was not able to produce her exact address, noting that it was entered into his GPS system. Id. at 84:2- 22. Gorman’s use of the word “chick” aroused Monroe’s suspicion that Gorman’s answers were rehearsed because Monroe thought that “chick” was an unusual word for a person Gorman’s age—thirty-one at the time of the stop—to use.

Obsolete vernacular = "reasonable suspicion." That and State Trooper Greg Monroe felt Gorman's claimed employment with a "beach activities and paddle board company" sounded similarly "rehearsed." Monroe went back to his vehicle and tried to rustle up a K9 unit. But there were no units nearby, the records check was coming up clean and Monroe was running out of ideas. First, he told Gorman he was free to leave. Then he started fishing:

Immediately afterward, Monroe asked Gorman if he could ask some additional questions. Monroe first asked how Gorman could afford to drive a motor home cross-country when gas prices were over $3.00 per gallon. Monroe then asked if Gorman still sold paddle boards for a living, and asked about his compensation, to which Gorman responded “I don’t want to talk about how much I make.” At approximately 9:25 a.m., Monroe asked if there was anything illegal in Gorman’s motor home, or if he was carrying large amounts of U.S. currency. Gorman then told Monroe that he was only carrying about $2000 in U.S. currency in the motor home. At 9:25:45 a.m, Monroe asked Gorman “do you mind if we search the vehicle?,” to which Gorman said “I do mind, yes.” At this point, Monroe told Gorman that he was free to leave [for the second time], returned to his vehicle, and said “he’s carrying money” aloud to himself.

Monroe smelled money and he wasn't about to let $2000 travel across his state without being apprehended. So, he called the Highway Patrol and told dispatch his suspcions, stating that the only way the vehicle could be searched was with the use of a drug dog. Dispatch called Deputy Doug Fisher and informed him that Gorman did not consent to a search and that he "might want to follow up on the information." Here we have two different law enforcement entities basically colluding to perform a search simply because one entity experienced a refusal. The court isn't impressed.

The Court is particularly troubled that the officers’ belief that Gorman would not consent to a search, and his opposition to the canine sniff, appears to have contributed to the officers’ purported reasonable suspicion to extend the stop and continue the investigation. Individuals have a right to refuse consent for a search, and the existence of this right requires that denial of consent not be a basis to prolong a stop.

On top of this, Monroe called Deputy Fisher directly to "relay his suspicions." He also inflated the amount of money Gorman had admitted to be carrying with him -- from $2000 to $5000. Fisher left the Sheriff's Office ostensibly to perform a "roving patrol," but soon decided to park himself on the side of the highway in order to catch Gorman when his RV passed by. Fisher pulled the RV over after it "crossed the fog line" a few times.

Having been stopped for a second time in under an hour, Gorman was understandably annoyed. He told Fisher the same thing he had told Monroe during his twenty-minute stop earlier. Fisher ran the same records checks and received the same lack of anything actionable. Despite this, Fisher pushed for a canine search.

[A]pproximately twelve minutes into the traffic stop, Fisher released his drug-detection canine “Euros” from his vehicle. Fisher and Euros then approached the motor home and began walking around it in the clockwise direction, starting at the rear left-hand side of the vehicle. As Fisher and Euros circled the rear of the motorhome, Euros sat down near the vehicle’s back right compartment, facing the compartment. Fisher described this as a “committed sit and stare,” which he considered to be a positive alert.

Even if you believe -- like the Supreme Court does -- that drug dogs are mostly reliable and unlikely to respond to signals (unconscious or otherwise) from their handlers, Fisher's next statements indicate that bringing a drug dog onto the scene is just an easy way to generate "probable cause" where none exists.

Gorman then referred to the back rear compartment and said “I can open that if you want to look in it. It’s charcoal and stuff like that, do you want to look in it?” Fisher replied “do you want to talk to me now?” Gorman replied “if he alerted somewhere, look in it because there’s no drugs.” Fisher then noted that odor could come out anywhere on the vehicle, and that the rear back compartment was on the “downwind side of the vehicle.”

Armed with the drug dog's affirmation that drugs might be located somewhere in the RV, the deputy acquired a telephonic warrant and immediately began searching the entire interior of the RV. And while the drug dog continued to "alert" on objects inside the vehicle, no drugs were found. The only thing "illegal" in Gorman's motorhome was $167,000 in cash, stashed away in the freezer, microwave and bedroom. Gorman was (for the third time in under two hours) free to go. But his money wasn't.

Gorman fought back. Almost two-and-a-half years from the point the money was taken, it is now ordered to be returned. On top of that, Gorman will also be awarded attorney's fees. Why? Because the government lied every step of the way.

First off, two different law enforcement officers performed consecutive stops, with the second stop being predicated on the "suspicions" generated by the first. This is something law enforcement cannot do.

Here, Gorman was initially stopped for a minor traffic offense at approximately 9:03 a.m. and released at approximately 9:26 a.m. when Monroe concluded that he did not have probable cause to search the motor home. Gorman was stopped the second time, again for a minor traffic offense, at approximately 10:15 a.m., and held for more than nine minutes before Fisher asked if he could conduct a canine sniff. Fisher knew that Monroe had previously ran a records check and lacked probable cause to hold Gorman, but nonetheless two additional records checks were conducted in order to prolong the detention and make time for a canine sniff. The positive alert occurred approximately twelve minutes after the second traffic stop occurred.

All tolled, Gorman was detained for a total of approximately thirty-five minutes without convincing independent reasonable suspicion—before the officers conducted a canine sniff of the motor home and obtained probable cause for the search. Of course, “an individual who has already been seized can still be further seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.” Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752, 772 n.12 (9th Cir. 2009). But a second stop requires additional reasonable suspicion independent of the reasonable suspicion present in the first stop.

On top of that, the government -- when arguing for its "right" to take money just because -- claimed the two stops were entirely unrelated.

In its supplemental briefing, and after it became evident that the two stops were connected, the United States argues that “Monroe’s earlier traffic stop is wholly irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis applicable to Gorman’s motion to suppress.” Specifically, the United States contends that “Fisher’s traffic stop was based on his own observations of traffic violations being committed by Gorman, without regard to any information provided” by Monroe. These statements cannot be reconciled with the testimony by Monroe and Fisher, or an independent review of the evidence before the Court.

Note the phrase "after it became evident." This wasn't evident at first. Deputy Fisher hid this fact from the magistrate judge when requesting a warrant over the phone and lied about what Gorman had actually told him.

[T]he warrant application never mentions Monroe’s original stop, that Monroe called Fisher with information about Gorman and Gorman’s vehicle, or that Fisher was dispatched to investigate Gorman. This omission thereby represented to the magistrate that Fisher pulled Gorman over solely due to his traffic violations, as opposed to having been encouraged to investigate Gorman by NHP and Monroe. Second, Fisher represents in the warrant application that Gorman “indicated he had no job.” This is unambiguously contradicted by the video of Fisher’s questioning of Gorman, in which Gorman states clearly that he works for a Maui paddle board company.

These lies -- kindly called "omissions" by the court -- sadly wouldn't be enough on their own to suppress the evidence obtained by the search. But the application of the Supreme Court's Rodriguez decision (officers can't unnecessarily prolong stops to perform [often dog-assisted] fishing expeditions) does call for suppression.

But Deputy Fisher wasn't the only one lying. The State's Attorney's office also lied to the court.

The Court is disappointed that the United States would aggressively pursue this forfeiture action while all of its moving documents for summary judgment and supporting affidavits contained material omissions concerning the history leading to the traffic stop and canine sniff at issue. The government’s Motion for Summary Judgment, with supporting affidavits from Deputy Fisher and the Assistant United States’ Attorney, made no disclosure of anything which would have suggested that Fisher’s stop was a follow-up on Monroe’s stop and was based upon suspicion of a drug related offense.

This is how the government portrayed Fisher's actions in its provided documents.

But, as pointed out earlier in the order, Doug Fisher wasn't assigned to traffic patrol and wouldn't have just been "monitoring traffic" if he hadn't received a call from dispatch about Gorman's RV, as well as a direct call from Trooper Monroe himself.

On top of the deceit at all levels, there were problems with the search itself. The drug dog alerted on a rear compartment. But rather than search that area, the deputies searched the entire vehicle.

[E]ven assuming that the officers had probable cause to search the back right compartment where the canine alerted, the Court is not convinced that the dog’s positive alert to the compartment gave the officers probable cause to search the entire motor home. Despite Gorman’s consent to search the compartment, the officers did not even begin their search of the motor home with the compartment, instead beginning with a search of the motor home’s main cabin. “Probable cause to believe that a container placed in the trunk of a taxi contains contraband or evidence does not justify a search of the entire cab.” United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 824 (1982)

The court doesn't weigh this issue specifically (although it does express its skepticism) but it doesn't have to. The prolonged detainment without probable cause is enough to suppress the evidence under Rodriguez.

The court sums it up succinctly while ordering the government to hand over not only Gorman's original $167,000, but attorney's fees as well.

Gorman is undoubtedly the successful party here.

This order shows law enforcement at its ugliest: willing to lie and cheat to maintain control of what it stole.

from the no-due-process-for-dead-presidents dept

After scraping together enough money to produce a music video in Hollywood, 22-year-old Joseph Rivers set out last month on a train trip from Michigan to Los Angeles, hoping it was the start of something big.

Rivers changed trains at the Amtrak station in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on April 15, with bags containing his clothes, other possessions and an envelope filled with the $16,000 in cash he had raised with the help of his family, the Albuquerque Journal reports. Agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration got on after him and began looking for people who might be trafficking drugs.

Rivers said the agents questioned passengers at random, asking for their destination and reason for travel. When one of the agents got to Rivers, who was the only black person in his car, according to witnesses, the agent took the interrogation further, asking to search his bags. Rivers complied. The agent found the cash -- still in a bank envelope -- and decided to seize it on suspicion that it may be tied to narcotics. River pleaded with the agents, explaining his situation and even putting his mother on the phone to verify the story.

No luck.

Leaving aside the unsavory hint of racial profiling, there's the fact that the DEA helped itself to cash simply because it was cash. It had no reason to suspect Rivers of anything, but the money was apparently too much to pass up. Even having his story corroborated was useless. And, sure, the DEA agents had no reason to believe anyone Rivers put them in touch with was a trustworthy source of information. (After all, he's some sort of drug dealer, right?) But to grant the DEA the benefit of the doubt for its refusal to believe Rivers' mother's statements is to cut the agents an absurd amount of slack for everything preceding that.

Because what did the DEA actually have here? A young guy and $16,000 in cash. According to the DEA's own statements, it doesn't need anything more than that to effect an asset seizure. And, according to the DEA's own statements, it has no reason to bother with anything more than a cursory look that "confirms" what it wants it to confirm.

[Sean] Waite [DEA - Albuquerque] said that in general DEA agents look for “indicators” such as whether the person bought an expensive one-way ticket with cash, if the person is traveling from or to a city known as a hot spot for drug activity, if the person’s story has inconsistencies or if the large sums of money found could have been transported by more conventional means.

If we leave it to the DEA to define drug activity "hot spots," it becomes any destination any traveler is headed to, especially if there's seizable cash involved. As for story inconsistencies, we're back to "eye of the beholder" territory. If agents are motivated to perform asset seizures, any story can be found to have enough flaws to justify the forfeiture. Waite's statement is very unhelpful, other than to show how completely screwed up asset forfeiture programs are.

As if on cue -- and as if the DEA's Sean Waite is completely unaware of the level of scrutiny and negative public opinion centered on asset forfeiture programs -- he delivers the most tone-deaf of talking points:

“We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Waite said. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”

Boom. There's your problem. Or rather, Rivers' problem. And the problem of far too many Americans who made the mistake of leaving home with cash on their person. The government doesn't need to prove shit. It can just take and take and take and force those wronged by its "presumptions" to jump through multiple expensive and mostly futile hoops if they hope to recover their "guilty" belongings.

So, what do you tell people like Rivers? "Don't carry cash?" Cash is universal and accepted everywhere. But it's also apparently inherently guilty. Just don't carry large amounts of cash? From Virginia's asset forfeiture stats:

Contrary to the oft-stated defense that these programs are necessary to cripple powerful drug lords and multimillion dollar fraudsters, more than half the cash seized from 2001-2006 fell in the $614-1,288 range and the average worth of vehicles seized has hovered at about $6,000.

A City Paper review of 100 cases from 2011 and 2012 found the median amount of cash seized by the District Attorney was only $178.

Any cash is inherently suspicious and can be deemed "guilty" by the seizing agency with no corroborating evidence. $16,000 has just made its way into the DEA's funds and if Rivers wants it back, he's likely going to lose a great deal of it to legal fees. He's currently trying to raise the money the DEA took from him via crowdfunding site GoFundMe. Hopefully, he'll get another chance to make his music video without being sidelined by government agents looking to bust some "guilty" cash.

from the money-money-money dept

Honestly, when I first caught wind that Valve was going to suddenly make its platform available for game modders to sell their mods for good old-fashioned money, I initially thought it was great. However, it took only a couple of moments of thinking to realize what a mess this would all be. Taking a modding ecosystem, where talented modders create add-ons and alterations of original games that give gamers exactly what they want, or more of what they want, and injecting money into it represented a misunderstanding of the relationship between modders and gamers, and a failure to understand the gaming community's obvious reaction. Keep in mind that modders already have been making money on Steam, except that they've done so when their mods become desired enough or revered enough to warrant full and separate releases within the game store. This was to be different: modders selling smaller mods within the original game's Steam page. Mods, mind you, help make individual games and entire platforms like Steam more desirable to gamers, also known as Valve's customers. Injecting money this way had what probably should have been easy to predict unintended consequences.

It's not uncommon for people to ask for donations, a nickel or two going clink in the cup, but charging upfront? Definitely not the standard. Some, however, are worried that it could become the norm, not the exception, which would fundamentally alter the mod scene. Mods, they fear (and have, to a small extent, observed), will stop updating for those who don't pay, will abandon mod-centric services like Nexus for Steam's greener pastures.

And:

The feedback wasn't any better on Twitter, where the sentiment expressed seemed to be at its most optimistic when complaining about feelings of abandonment by the modding community, once thought to be simply a faction of the gamer-side of the larger ecosystem and now firmly placed in the sellers category with game-makers, and at its most pessimistic when predicting that Valve's move represents the beginning of the end of modding as a whole. The latter was never true, I'll say, and frankly nobody should be pointing fingers at Valve for this at all. If the market supported paid mods, it would have worked.

It didn't work and part of the reason it didn't does indeed have the tint of an IP issue at its heart. It turns out there was an IP issue over one of the early, if not first, mods offered in Valve's store, with all the accusations of infringement over the work of others that you'd expect — except the issue is between modders and doesn't involve the game-maker at all.

As Destructoid and PC Gamer point out, “Art of the Catch” was created by modders Chesko and aqqh. It also allegedly uses assets from another mod by a modder known as Fore without permission. Fore apparently confronted the Chesko (though, the original comment seems to have been deleted).

If you pay any attention to the modding space, you already know where this is going. It's very common for some mods to incorporate other mods within the larger distribution. This can happen when modders create total conversion mods, where a game is radically changed by implementing a plethora of previously-made mods, or it can happen when the aim of a mod is to drastically change an aspect of the game and a previous mod did part of the work already. What has always happened is that permission was attained to use the mod, credit was given in the release notes of the new mod, and everyone was happy because mods weren't charged for.

Now, we have two modders in a pissing match (though Chesko has reportedly been reaching out to Fore to clear this all up), all due to money exchanging hands. Not only that, but there have been complaints that Steam is punishing users who are raising their voices on the issue. In other words, Valve took a modding ecosystem that was working perfectly well, injected money into it, and the problems arose almost immediately. As for the overall effect these kinds of disputes can have on the modding community? Well, for what it's worth, Chesko is talking about quitting the whole scene entirely, so there's that.

Between that and the general customer reaction to the rollout of this paid mods scheme, it seems clear that Valve never really thought this through. What started off as a Twitter bitch-fest from upset gamers evolved into the kind of protest-comedy only the internet can produce. The end result was Steam's most popular Skyrim mod being a protest against paid mods, allowing characters to carry around a protest placard within the game. And, after the customers and fans had spoken, game developers will have their turn. One of them, Bethesda, makers of the afore-mentioned Skyrim, pulled all paid mods for the game entirely. The public comments from Valve, in conjunction with news that they will offer full refunds on all the Skyrim mods that had already been purchased, don't inspire much confidence, either.

"We've done this because it's clear we didn't understand exactly what we were doing," Valve said in a community update. "We've been shipping many features over the years aimed at allowing community creators to receive a share of the rewards, and in the past, they've been received well. It's obvious now that this case is different...But we underestimated the differences between our previously successful revenue sharing models, and the addition of paid mods to Skyrim's workshop. We understand our own game's communities pretty well, but stepping into an established, years old modding community in Skyrim was probably not the right place to start iterating. We think this made us miss the mark pretty badly, even though we believe there's a useful feature somewhere here."

Look, I don't actually have a problem with modders trying to make money from their work, and I have zero problem with Valve providing a platform for that...I just don't think it will ever actually work. The modding community functions in a way that doesn't benefit from the injection of money-making opportunities for these more modest mods, which are among the most popular. But, as I mentioned at the open, it's not like modders can't make money from Steam. They do, and have. You've probably heard of some of them, like DayZ, or Team Fortress, and The Stanley Parable. All of those games started off as mods (in the case of Team Fortress — now one of Valve's most profitable properties — years before the Steam store even existed) and all of them now have full Steam game pages themselves. The gaming market worked that out on its own.

And you can bet that the smarter game publishers out there aren't going to get on board with allowing paid mods on their Steam pages now that the backlash is in full swing. Mods make games more buy-able, and a negative aspect in the modding community for a particular game isn't something a publisher is going to want to put up with (see: Bethesda).

from the good-move dept

Well, here's a bit of a surprise. For years we've been highlighting the ridiculousness of police asset seizure and asset forfeiture laws (and, actually, were working on another post on some new such laws that we may now need to revisit...). These laws have basically become a legalized way for local police to steal cars and money without ever charging anyone with a crime. And then... they get to keep the money and sell off the cars. Some have even admitted the process is basically the police going "shopping" for stuff they want. They can seize anything, claiming that it was used in a crime, even if no one is ever charged with a crime. Effectively, they're "charging the thing" which is why you get crazy case names like the (actual case): United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls.

“With this new policy, effective immediately, the Justice Department is taking an important step to prohibit federal agency adoptions of state and local seizures, except for public safety reasons,” Holder said in a statement.

Holder’s decision allows some limited exceptions, including illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography, a small fraction of the total. This would eliminate virtually all cash and vehicle seizures made by local and state police from the program.

While police can continue to make seizures under their own state laws, the federal program was easy to use and required most of the proceeds from the seizures to go to local and state police departments. Many states require seized proceeds to go into the general fund.

There's still more to be done to fix bad asset seizure and forfeiture laws, but this is a really big step forward.

Of course, just watch as police departments start to protest that they can no longer go "shopping" for "toys" that they can steal:

The policy will touch policing and local budgets in every state. Since 2001, about 7,600 of the nation’s 18,000 police departments and task forces have participated in Equitable Sharing. For hundreds of police departments and sheriff’s offices the seizure proceeds accounted for 20 percent or more of their annual budgets in recent years.

from the how-do-they-sleep-at-night? dept

There are so many incredible things in the CIA Torture Report that will be discussed and analyzed over the next few weeks and months. But one that stands out to me is that the architects of the torture program were not only wholly unqualified to design it, but they profited massively from the program, to the tune of at least $81 million. And that number may go up, as they also are getting paid by the government for any legal issues related to the program, including over $1 million for legal fees associated with responding to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation that resulted in this report.

The report uses pseudonyms for the two psychologists: Grayson Swigert and Hammond Dunbar. However, their names were actually revealed back in 2007: James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen. To say they were unqualified for the work of designing the torture program would be an understatement. While they were psychologists with the US Air Force's "Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape" (SERE) program (which is supposed to help train US military personnel in case they're captured), you'd think they'd actually have some relevant background with terrorism and/or interrogation. But, nope:

Neither
psychologist had experience as an interrogator, nor did either have specialized knowledge of al-
Qa'ida, a background in terrorism, or any relevant regional, cultural, or linguistic expertise.
SWIGERT had reviewed research on "learned helplessness," in which individuals might become
passive and depressed in response to adverse or uncontrollable events. He theorized that
inducing such a state could encourage a detainee to cooperate and provide information.

Instead, their only real experience with interrogation was in reading reports on how to resist the kind of torture programs used by those who failed to follow the Geneva Conventions. Their limited experience with interrogation revolved almost entirely on pure torture programs that did not follow the Geneva Conventions:

SERE training is intended to be used to teach our soldiers how to resist interrogation by
enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions and international law. In SERE school, our troops who are at
risk of capture are exposed in a controlled environment with great protections and caution -- to techniques adapted
from abusive tactics used against American soldiers by enemies such as the Communist Chinese during the Korean
War. SERE training techniques include stress positions, forced nudity, use of fear, sleep deprivation and, until
recently, the Navy SERE school used the waterboard. These techniques were designed to give our students a taste
of what they might be subjected to if captured by a ruthless, lawless enemy so that they would be better prepared to
resist. The techniques were never intended to be used against detainees in U.S. custody.

In other words, their knowledge of interrogation came solely from knowing a little about torture programs used by countries who didn't follow the Geneva Conventions, and their role had been to try to help US soldiers resist such techniques should they come up. Instead, they turned it around and told the CIA to do almost everything that they flat out knew were torture programs in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The psychologists -- initially led by the pseudonymous "Swigert" -- were the key to initially torturing Abu Zubadayah. According to the report, the CIA initially planned to see if Zubadayah would provide information through more standard interrogation techniques, leaving a "hard approach... only as a last resort." In discussing this, someone suggested bringing in Swigert for help -- and almost immediately the plans changed.

Shortly thereafter, CIA
Headquarters formally proposed that Abu Zubaydah be kept in an all-white room that was lit 24
hours a day, that Abu Zubaydah not be provided any amenities, that his sleep be disrupted, that
loud noise be constantly fed into his cell, and that only a small number of people interact with
him. CIA records indicate that these proposals were based on the idea that such conditions
would lead Abu Zubaydah to develop a sense of "learned helplessness. CIA Headquarters
then sent an interrogation team to Country [X], including SWIGERT, whose initial role was to
consult on the psychological aspects of the interrogation.

Remember, Swigert had apparently recently reviewed some "research" on "learned helplessness," and suddenly the CIA's interrogation plan changed. An FBI message at the time shows exasperation over this, noting that the FBI's more traditional interrogation techniques had been working in getting relevant information, but as soon as the CIA's chosen psychologists showed up, they went straight to torture, and blocked the FBI out of the process. Here's part of an FBI agent's message back to FBI headquarters:

"AZ's health has improved over the last two days and Agency[CIA]is ready
to move [Abu Zubaydah] out of the hospital and back toUH^^Ion
in an elaborate plan to change AZ's environment. Agency [CIA]
advised this day that they will be immediately changing tactics in all future AZ
interviews by having only there [sic] [CIA officer] interact with AZ (there will
be no FBI presence in interview room). This change contradicts all
conversations had to date.... They believe AZ is offering, 'throw away
information' and holding back from providing threat information (It should be
note [sic] that we have obtained critical information regarding AZ thus far and
have now got him speaking about threat information, albeit from his hospital
bed and not [an] appropriate interview environment for full follow-up (due to
his health). Suddenly the psychiatric team here wants AZ to only interact with
their [CIA officer, and the CIA sees this] as being the best way to get the threat
information.... We offered several compromise solutions... all suggestions
were immediately declined without further discussion. .. .This again is quite
odd as all information obtained from AZ has come from FBI lead interviewers
and questioning.... I have spent an un-calculable amount of hours at [Abu
Zubaydah's] bedside assisting with medical help, holding his hand and
comforting hum through various medical procedures, even assisting him in
going [to] the batliroom.... We have built tremendous report [sic] with AZ and
now that we are on the eve of 'regular'' interviews to get threat information, we
have been 'written out' of future interviews.

That was just the beginning. "Swigert" became a key cog in pushing for ever greater torture techniques:

In early July 2002, CIA officers held several meetings at CIA
Headquarters to discuss the possible use of "novel interrogation methods" on Abu Zubaydah.'"
During the course of those meetings SWIGERT proposed using techniques derived from the U.S.
military's SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) school. SWIGERT provided a
list of 12 SERE techniques for possible use by the CIA: (1) the attention grasp, (2) walling, (3)
facial hold, (4) facial slap, (5) cramped confinement, (6) wall standing, (7) stress positions, (8)
sleep deprivation, (9) waterboard, (10) use of diapers, (11) use of insects, and (12) mock
burial. SWIGERT also recommended that the CIA enter into a contract with Hammond
DUNBAR, his co-author of the CIA report on potential al-Qa'ida interrogation resistance
training, to aid in the CIA interrogation process. Like SWIGERT, DUNBAR had never
participated in a real-world interrogation. His interrogation experience was limited to the paper
he authored with SWIGERT and his work with U.S. Air Force personnel at the SERE school.

You'd think that this sort of lack of experience would be a concern. But, to the CIA, apparently, it was seen as an advantage. A footnote quoting the CIA's response discusses this:

Drs. [SWIGERT] and [DUNBAR] had the closest proximate expertise CIA sought at the beginning of the program,
specifically in the area of non-standard means of interrogation. Experts on traditional interrogation methods did not
meet this requirement. Non-standard interrogation methodologies were not an area of expertise of CIA officers or of
the US Government generally. We believe their expertise was so unique that we would have been derelict had we
not sought them out when it became clear that CIA would be heading into the uncharted territory of the program.

The Senate report points follows this up by pointing out that these psychologists were the key to convincing the CIA to adopt the ruthless torture plans:

As noted above, the CIA did not seek out SWIGERT and DUNBAR after a
decision was made to use coercive interrogation techniques; rather,SWIGERT and DUNBAR played a role in
convincing the CIA to adopt such a policy.

In fact, it soon reached the point at which the only people allowed to have contact with Abu Zubadayah were... Swigert and Dunbar, the two psychologists who (remember) had no experience with interrogations and little to no background on Al'Qaeda.

On August 3, 2002, CIA Headquarters informed the interrogation
team at DETENTION SITE GREEN that it had formal approval to apply the CIA's enhanced
interrogation techniques, including the waterboard, against Abu Zubaydah. According to CIA
records, only the two CIA contractors, SWIGERT and DUNBAR, were to have contact with Abu
Zubaydah. Other CIA personnel at DETENTION SITE GREEN - including CIA medical
personnel and other CIA "interrogators with whom he is familiar" - were only to observe.

The report notes, not surprisingly, that this plan to torture Abu Zubadayah produced no useful intelligence (not that it would be okay if it had... but just pointing it out). However, the CIA then let the two psychologists review the success of the program themselves. Guess what they found?

As noted, CIA records indicate that Abu Zubaydah never provided
the information for which the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques were justified and
approved.... Nonetheless, CIA Headquarters
informed the National Security Council that the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques used
against Abu Zubaydah were effective and were "producing meaningful results." A cable from
DETENTION SITE GREEN, which CIA records indicate was authored by SWIGERT and
DUNBAR, also viewed the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah as a success. The cable
recommended that "the aggressive phase at [DETENTION SITE GREEN] should be used as a
template for future interrogation of high value captives," not because the CIA's enhanced
interrogation techniques produced useful information, but rather because their use confirmed that
Abu Zubaydah did not possess the intelligence that CIA Headquarters had assessed Abu
Zubaydah to have.

Got that? They said it was a success because the torture turned up nothing of value, and thus it proved he had no valuable information to provide. Thus, it should become the model for "future interrogations." And it did. The same cable, again, authored by those two psychologists, set themselves up to continue being torturers-for-hire:

The cable further recommended that psychologists—a likely
reference to contractors SWIGERT and DUNBAR— "familiar with interrogation, exploitation
and resistance to interrogation should shape compliance of high value captives prior to
debriefing by substantive experts."

And, indeed, they were used again. And again.

As late as June 2003, SWIGERT and DUNBAR, operating outside
of the direct management of the Renditions Group, were deployed to DETENTION SITE BLUE
to both interrogate and conduct psychological reviews of detainees.

This was just the beginning, but once they were in, they were in. Despite a few attempts by some in the CIA to raise concerns about these two, they became the go to guys for both torture techniques and in evaluating those very same torture techniques. And they made a shitload of money.

CIA contractors SWIGERT and DUNBAR, who played a central
role in the development of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques in the summer of 2002,
and then used the techniques as contract interrogators, formed a company in 2005
[Company Y]. In addition to providing interrogators for the CIA's interrogation program,
Company Y was granted a sole source contract to provide operational psychologists, debriefers,
and security personnel at CIA detention sites. Under the contract. Company Y was tasked
with conducting ongoing conversations with CIA detainees to learn about the terrorist mind set
(this project was named the "Terrorist Think Tank" or "T3"), developing [REDACTED]
strategies, and writing the history of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. Later
descriptions of their services note that—on behalf of the CIA—Company Y officers participated
in the interrogations of detainees held in foreign government custody and served as
intermediaries between entities of those governments and the CIA.

By 2006, the value of the base contract for their company, with all
options exercised, was in excess of $180 million. As of May 2007, Company Y had hired [X]
former CIA staff officers, many of whom had previously been involved with the CIA's
Detention and Interrogation Program....

The CIA's contract with Company Y was terminated in mid-2009.
From the time of the company's creation in 2005 through the close-out of its contract in 2010,
the CIA paid Company Y more than $75 million for services in conjunction with the CIA's
Detention and Interrogation Program.... In 2008, the CIA authorized an additional payment to
Company Y of approximately $570,000, after Company Y indicated that it had incurred costs for
conducting countersurveillance of its officers when appeared in the press in conjunction with the program. The CIA agreed to a $5 million indemnification contract for the company that covered, among other expenses, criminal
prosecution. Company Y hired a prominent [REDACTED] law firm for representation in
2007, and billed the CIA $1.1 million for legal expenses from 2007 through 2012 per its
indemnification agreement. Part of these expenses included legal presentation at a
Committee staff briefing by SWIGERT and DUNBAR on November [XX], 2008. Under the
CIA's indemnification contract, the CIA is obligated to pay Company Y's legal expenses
through 2021.

Torture sure is profitable.

Reading the details of the report, it certainly feels like James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen deserve a place in history alongside other infamous torturers. And yet, instead, they're free and have banked many millions of dollars -- and Mitchell now spends his retirement kayaking in Florida. It's downright sickening.

from the gimmie-gimmie-gimmie dept

Well, this is fun. We just recently wrote about how Chicago's speed cameras, ostensibly all to do with safety, failed to bring in as much money as Mayor Rahm Emanuel had suggested in his budget plan. Yes, tickets based on speed cameras were worked into the budget numbers, which is a strange thing to do if they're supposed to be about safety and not money. Safe driving, in other words, should not trigger a budget crisis. But it turns out the ticketing revenue might still be inflated, even at the crisis number, as a bunch of speeding tickets were generated by cameras within school zones flagging drivers for driving over the school zone limit in the summertime.

Kenneth Maschek, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit filed in circuit court Friday, says he was issued a $100 fine for speeding near Lane Tech College Prep High School on June 26, 2014. A speed camera, or Automated Speed Enforcement system, captured alleged violation, but the school year ended on June 10, Maschek claims. His was one of more than 34,000 violations that Chicago issued over summer break this year, from July 1 to September 1, according to the lawsuit. Maschek says the law is meant to keep the areas around schools, statutorily defined as one-eighth of a mile, safe for the children attending them.

We appear to be doubling up on claiming that revenue-generating laws are all about safety. In this case, speed cameras ticketed drivers for driving over limits intended to protect children when there were no children present. In case you were wondering, state law specifically prohibits issuing citations for driving over school zone limits except on "school days." This resulted in millions in revenue that never should have been generated.

The city's website states that school safety zones are in effect from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on school days, reducing speed to 20 mph until 4 p.m. and 30 mph after that. Maschek who cites the page and related press releases in his lawsuit, notes that signs posted near the zones also say the speed reduction applies "on school days when children are present." Residents of Chicago "routinely drive through school safety zones on an ongoing basis," leaving them constantly vulnerable to speeding tickets when the reduced speed should not be in effect, the complaint states.

I expect that the city will mumble something about summer school and blah blah blah, because that's what we do in my home city. When confronted with a clear mistake or inequity, we look it straight in the eye and pretend it doesn't exist. It's sort of a municipal past time around these parts. Hopefully the courts will see through any push back. Either way, the claim that speed cameras have anything to do with safety should be over and done with.

from the oh,-these-aren't-weapons,-these-are-ANSWERS dept

In a video obtained by the New York Times, an unnamed officer forces 35-year-old Lamard Joye against a fence surrounding a Coney Island basketball court and removes what appears to be a handful of cash from Joye's pocket at the six-second mark.

"You see this? You see this?" Joye says, before demanding his money back. The officer replies, "You're gonna mouth off?" and begins to discharge pepper spray into Joye's face.

Joye's sister also gets pepper sprayed after asking the officer to state his name.

Joye was not arrested and has yet to receive his money back. He claims Officer William Montemarano took $1300 from him during this "stop-and-frisk."

Apparently it's OK to take money from uncharged individuals during stop-and-frisks as long as it's: a) not very much money, and b) it's vouchered at the station.

What went unaddressed was the officer's use of pepper spray to shut up both Joye and his sister, who were both asking for the return of the money taken by Montemarano.

Between the asset seizure and the low-level brutality, there's not much about this that's all that surprising. Small abuses of power like these happen every single day. The only thing that's changed is the likelihood that someone will record the incident.

I know this cop and he is a solid guy with (if not) 20 years, very close to it.

It is possible that he has even more than 20 years.

I cannot fathom why he is still running around on Patrol. Truly unf u c k i n g believable.

[One possible reason? Officer Montemurano was recently named in a police brutality lawsuit alleging that he and another officer beat an arrestee with their nightsticks and kicked him in the throat. The city settled for $25,000.]

From an OBJECTIVE point of view and NOT KNOWING WHY the cops were called to this scene, I do not know WHY he would remove a wad of money from someone's pocket.

MONEY is not contraband and UNLESS you are collaring someone for robbery, GL or narcotics sales and are going to voucher the money as proceeds of a crime, you have no business WHATSOEVER removing money from a mope's pocket.

I repeat, you have no business taking money out of some mope's pocket because he is a loud mouth involved in a large dispute, which is what this situation appears to be.

That said, I would bet my house that this officer returned the money or vouchered it - he did NOT steal this money.

[Which seems to have been confirmed by the NYPD statement, but doesn't explain why money is being taken from someone who wasn't arrested.]

Spritzing the crowd with mace a la DI Bologna* is the cherry on top of the Sundae. In the current climate, that is going to be a problem.

I must say, the daily videos and the daily wholesale suspensions and modifications of MOS have left me exasperated.

It is as if the cops are completely OBLIVIOUS.

Do they read newspapers, do they ever watch TV, do they speak to other cops, do they ever see the Finest spitting out these 'change of duty' statuses?

It would appear that they do not.

It would appear that they are blissfully ignorant of what is going on in the world around them.

It appears that the PBA says and does nothing to raise their awareness that there is an anti-cop feeding frenzy in progress.

This forum member makes a point that very few within the law enforcement community will ever raise. It's no longer business as usual out there. People are watching.

It's as if a majority of law enforcement agencies view the current "anti-cop feeding frenzy" as some sort of a fad -- something they can just muscle through without changing officer behavior, altering their training or even holding those caught in the act accountable for their misconduct.

Everyone has a camera these days. Anyone with a cell phone also has a recording device. YouTube gives everyone a platform to lift local incidents into the worldwide consciousness.

It's not just the ubiquity of cameras, though. It's the interconnectedness the internet provides. Brutality or misconduct lawsuits filed in small towns used to only be covered in local papers. Now, even the smallest of local news websites can be swept into basic searches for information.

And yet, the pace of these incidents doesn't seem to be slowing. Officers are still acting as though their worst behavior is still largely unobserved. They're not learning from the past mistakes of countless others. Even those who have been "burned" previously continue to act as though they can abuse their power to harass and intimidate people. Just read through the numerous postings at Photography Is Not A Crime. Many of the posts deal with the same law enforcement entities and the same accountability activists, and yet, there's no indication that policy changes or previous bad press have had any deterrent effect on the officers involved.

As the forum comment points out, there's no apparent sense of self-awareness evident in officers like Montemarano. He notes that the PBA (Patrolmen's Benevolent Association) isn't doing anything to help officers be more aware of public perception. I don't know why he's surprised by this. The PBA, like many other police unions, is one of the first entities to protest any changes in policy meant to address police misconduct, and actively fights additional accountability efforts like the use of body cameras. These unions are also instrumental in returning fired cops to their former positions, showing that even when local PDs finally make an effort to shed the worst in their ranks, their efforts can often be undone by entities that put an officer's employment well ahead of the public interest and the police department itself.

It's not that there aren't any positive signs. It's that there are so few, compared to the amount of citizen documentation piling up. This isn't some temporary change in public perception. It's ongoing, and it's not going to get any better if law enforcement officers remain insulated from accountability and wholly oblivious to the implications of their actions.

from the the-latest-iteration dept

A few weeks ago, I first heard about a scam in which scammers were calling up unsuspecting people, claiming to be the IRS and saying that the recipient had failed to pay taxes and was at risk of arrest if they didn't pay up quickly. The caller demands that the money be sent via a "GreenDot MoneyPak," which is basically the equivalent of cash. Scams like this have been going on for a while now -- just do a simple Google search on "scam, greendot" and you'll find a lot of results. Most recently, the scam has focused either on the IRS, as mentioned above, or local utilities, with threats about turning off your power, phone, etc. New York City even put out an alert directly warning about GreenDot MoneyPak scams.

However, it appears that the scammers have recently attempted to move on from just the IRS and utilities -- to two appealing alternative options: the NSA and the FBI. Lawyer David Gingras apparently spotted the FBI version upon visiting a website recently:

Apparently, at least some of these are appearing because of a virus that tries to make it look like the FBI locked up your computer. I particularly like the three reasons why your computer might have been locked up: First up is copyright infringement -- which does note "Article I, Section 8, Clause 8" (though later it says "Cause 8"), which is the Constitution's copyright clause, but here it's nonsensically described as "the Copyright of the Criminal Code of the United States of America," and then there's this, which is so obviously not written by someone fluent in English: "provides for a fine of two to five hundred minimal wages or a deprivation of liberty for two to eight years." Then there's the inevitable claim of child porn (though this calls it "child porno" and "article 202 of the Criminal Code"). You'd think for all the effort put into this, they'd at least look up the relevant laws. Finally, my favorite: they point out (somewhat accurately) that you might have malware on your computer, and then say, "thus you are violating the law on Neglectful Use of Personal Computer." Perhaps that's the most accurate, except that the fine here is paid for stupidity rather than any actual criminal violation.

Here's another version, using the DOJ's logo:

I find it vaguely amusing that all of these scammers highlight the store logos where you can conveniently buy a GreenDot MonkeyPak to help out with the scam.

The NSA/CSS is aware of a computer malware scam using the NSA/CSS seals and banner. Victims of this malware report that a pop-up or a locked Internet browser alerts them that they have violated the law and/or are being monitored. The scam may also request that victims pay a fine. This activity and the associated alerts have no affiliation to the federal government, NSA included, and no money should be paid to the scammers. Victims should consult a computer professional on how to address the computer infection. Victims may also contact the Internet Crime and Complaint Center, a partnership between the FBI and National White Collar Crime Center that accepts Internet-related criminal complaints. For more information about malware, users can review the NIST Guide to Malware Incident Prevention and Handling.

Of course, it's no surprise that with all of the reports of NSA and FBI surveillance and abuse, that scammers would jump on the opportunity to make use of that fear in their efforts. That said, I would imagine that targeting the FBI -- which actually does investigate cybercrime -- might not be that wise of a decision for the scammers.

from the it-can-be-a-good-thing dept

Sometimes I read a great
fan fiction and think to myself, "Gee, I wish there was a Paypal
button here somewhere, because I feel the overwhelming urge to ram
wads of money down this writer's throat." This is basically impossible,
of course; fanfic is considered an illegal derivative work under
copyright law, and even the creators that allow it have a
no-tolerance attitude towards fans who try to collect money for their
work. If fans were allowed to earn money, conventional wisdom
claims, it would siphon money away from the original creator and they
would lose business. But what if conventional wisdom was completely
and totally wrong?

For-profit fan creativity
is a huge opportunity, but creators are letting it go to waste
because they're so anxious to protect their copyrights. It may seem
counterintuitive, but letting other people make money from your
intellectual property can add far more value than it costs—in
some cases millions of dollars. How does this work?

It has been estimated that
as of 2012, E. L. James was making $1.35
million a week
on Fifty Shades of Grey. Now, it is widely known that Fifty Shades
of Grey was originally a Twilight fanfic titled Master of the
Universe. E. L. James changed the characters' names from Edward and
Bella to Christian and Anna and republished her fanfic as a "new"
book. Now she's a multimillionaire.

So let me ask you a
question: how much money has Stephenie Meyer, author of the Twilight
series, lost because she sent this brilliant piece of Twilight
fanfiction out of her franchise? How many 50 Shades fans would have
gone on to become Twilight fans if Edward and Bella had not been
renamed? How many Twilight books would Meyer have sold in the
resulting publicity frenzy if people had seen 50 Shades as an
extension of her original stories? Meyer must have lost millions of
dollars and sent away untold potential fans.

Now imagine what would have
happened if she had shared her intellectual property with her fans,
allowing them to earn money from their work instead of relegating
them to non-profit status. E. L. James would not have been forced to
"barcode strip" Master of the Universe in order to make a
profit, and Meyer could have kept all that money and attention in the
Twilight family.

Now, I admire Meyer's
attitude towards fanfiction—she's one of the few authors who
includes a list of Twilight fanfic sites on her homepage—but I
think it's time for progressive authors to start questioning whether
the taboo against for-profit fan activity actually serves a business
purpose, or if it's just a reflexive attitude left over from an
intolerant past.

Many authors believe that
they must prevent fans from "competing" with them, or else
readers will buy the fan's work instead of theirs, resulting in lost
sales. This idea sounds good on paper, but it looks strange when you
actually try to give an example. Can you imagine a Harry Potter fan
saying, "Well, I was going to spend this $10 on Rowling's new
book, but I spent that money on a fanfic instead. I guess now I
won't buy the next Harry Potter book after all."

People like that just don't
exist in real life. They're only a bogeyman haunting the insecure
subconscious of the writing world. Even in the rare scenario where a
fan like E. L. James writes a fanfic that becomes more popular than
the original, it's highly unlikely that the original author will be
harmed. What is more likely to happen is that all the fans who were
attracted by the fanfic's success will now become interested in the
original author's work and go out and buy a copy of it for
themselves. That's hardly a negative consequence!

Let me give you a recent
example of how this worked for me. I had a written a fanfic (nothing
particularly special) that a few people clicked on and enjoyed. The
story didn't attract much attention, and the internet had pretty much
forgotten about it until a fan of my fanfiction (whee, recursion!)
decided to pay a particularly talented fan artist to illustrate a
scene from my story. So now someone is getting paid, and that
someone is not me, the writer. Was this bad for my "business"?
Nope. Immediately afterwards, the story got a big boost in traffic;
in fact, all my stories did. Subsequently, a user contacted me to
request permission to translate my stories into Russian.

Although I did not receive
any compensation from the fan artist, nevertheless their work
indirectly benefited me by expanding my fanbase and drawing attention
to my work. If I had tightly controlled the for-profit use of my
story, my work probably would have remained lost amidst a sea of
hundreds of other fanfics. It's worth noting that the fan art is
probably more popular than my original story—but who cares?
The more publicity that picture gets, the more fans my story gets.
It's a symbiotic relationship, not a competitive one.

But there are other reasons
why authors break into a cold sweat when they imagine an anonymous
fan's literary creations popping up alongside their own stories on
Amazon. Writers worry that new readers won't be able to tell the
fanfics apart from the original. The fear is that a new reader will
do a search for "The Hunger Games" and discover a one star
fanfic named "This Is My Frist Hunger Games FanFic About Katniss
Please Read!!!!" The reader will then mistake the fanfic for
the real Hunger Games, which has 4.6 stars and 21,746 reviews, and
buy the fanfic instead. Mortified by what they find, they will then
go and tell everyone how awful the Hunger Games is.

No, it doesn't make much sense. Nevertheless, there is a genuine concern that
this could happen. Fortunately, most fans are scrupulous about
giving attribution, and search engines are very good at pointing out
the most popular items and sending unpopular work into oblivion. But
for the extra-cautious, there's a simple solution to prevent reader
confusion: just require fans to label their work as a fan creation by
placing the word "[Fanfic]" "[Fan Art]" etc. in
brackets after the title. This would make it impossible to mistake a
fan's work for the original. Simple, no?

But there is another
argument often made against for-profit fan creativity. Meyer was at one point
threatened with a lawsuit by a fan who claimed that she had stolen
the fan's idea in one of her books. The lawsuit didn't go anywhere,
but you see the problem: if a creator and a fan creator both happen
to come up with the same idea, the resemblance between the two
creatives' work could give the fan an opening to sue the creator.
For this reason, even authors who approve of fanfic typically refuse
to read it for fear they might be held liable.

Such incidents do not
happen frequently, but the danger they represent has led many
creators to categorize fanfiction as a threat instead of an
opportunity. Fortunately, an easy fix for this problem already
exists. The solution is to use a ShareAlike
license in which creator and fans formally agree to share ideas
with each other. This explicitly ensures that creators and fans do
not face legal repercussions even if resemblances occur. Such terms
are already incorporated into tried-and-true open licenses like
Creative Commons ShareAlike. Why worry about a problem that has been
solved for years?

Of course, there are many
non-monetary reasons why a creator might not want fan
creators' work to become as popular as their own or to appear in a
search engine next to theirs. I can't address these concerns; all I
want to point out is that for creators interested in earning as
much money as possible, fan creativity is financially beneficial.

In fact, let's go a step
farther. The 50 Shades story is only the tip of the iceberg when it
comes to making profits from fan work. Let's talk for a bit about
the untapped potential of crowdsourced creativity. We all know why
Wikipedia beat out Encyclopedia Britannica: Wikipedia has (approximately) umpteen zillion
contributors who each contribute a single thought to the sum of human
knowledge, whereas Encyclopedia Britannica has a relatively small
team of paid staff who are experts in their fields. We can learn
something very interesting from how Wikipedia completely slam-dunked
the traditional encyclopedia biz.

When looking at franchises
like Lord of the Rings, there is a clear division of labor. On one
hand you have the "official" creators, namely Tolkien, his
heirs, the movie studios, and the marketers and designers behind the
various toy lines, games etc—a few thousand paid professionals,
all told. And on the other hand you have hundreds of thousands of
unpaid fans who each contribute a single piece of creativity to the
pool: a work of fanfiction, a set of comic strips, a costume, a
graphic novel, a short film, a kitbashed action figure. Taken as a
whole, the fans have done a Wikipedia on the official creators,
haven't they? They've created thousands of spin off novels, a
gigantic toy line, and enough artwork to fill a thousand coffee table
books. Not all of it is high quality, but even if we assume that 90%
is crap and 10% is quality, that remaining 10% is massive enough to
totally whomp the efforts of the franchise owners by any measurement.

All this unmonetized fan
creativity is money lost for Tolkien's franchise. Even if they
tripled their team of paid professional creators today, they could
never hope to satisfy the whole demands of the market, because
somewhere out there is a guy with $20 in his pocket who likes Lord of
the Rings but is completely obsessed with dinosaurs. Unfortunately
for him, LOTR doesn't have dinosaurs of any kind, so instead our
potential customer will spend his money on Jurassic Park merchandise.

Under normal conditions,
the owners of the Tolkien franchise would not be able to take
advantage of such a tiny $20 niche market; they simply do not have
the means to meet the unique needs of all the world's individuals.
But there is another way by which this vast untapped market could be
broken into. You see, somewhere out there is a fanfic writer who is
working on a Lord of the Rings rewrite with the elves as raptors and
Gandalf as a stegosaurus. (I have seen much, much stranger things
than this become wildly popular.) This fan—one of hundreds of
thousands of unpaid volunteers—has the ability to harvest that
$20 in our prospective buyer's pocket. But none of that money would
to go the owners of Tolkien's franchise. Or would it?

Imagine what would happen
if the fanfic writer was allowed to
accept the $20. The writer would have a strong incentive to
write another dinosaur LOTR fanfic, wouldn't they? If the money kept
flowing and the market kept responding, eventually other fan creators
would join in with fan art, a short Flash cartoon, some comics,
translations into various languages, a line of 3D printed toys, etc.
Meanwhile, the dinosaur fan is now being slowly converted from a guy
who was mildly interested in LOTR into a True Fan of LOTR who will
now buy "official" merchandise from the franchise owners.
But could this ever happen in real life?

It happened to me recently.
As a kid, I used to be a big fan of Garfield; as an adult, I had
pretty much forgotten about it. But that was before I discovered
Mezzacotta's "Square of Root of Garfield Minus Garfield," a
hilarious reinterpretation of Garfield which combines playful
mathematics, Garfield scholarship, and ingenious twists to put a
whole new spin on strips I had read dozens of times as a kid. After
reading through all the Mezzacotta strips, I needed MOAR, so I headed
over to Jim Davis' website to read through his archive of Garfield
comic strips. Lately I've also been hunting through the local thrift
store for his books. I'm still way more fond of Mezzacotta's
interpretation than Jim Davis' original comics, but the odds of Davis
getting money from me have increased dramatically with my renewed
interest in the series.

So you see the progression:
Fans tap market unsatisfied by original creator. New fans are
converted and become curious about the original works. New fans go
on to spend money on products offered by the original creator.

Once fan creators begin
making money, it starts a virtuous cycle of profits and reinvestment
that will allow the creation of ever more complex and expensive
productions. Right now, fans are limited in their ability to create movies, games, merchandise
lines and
TV series because such things
are out of their budget range. (It's not that they haven't
tried; see, for example, this crowdfunding drive where a fan tried to
raise
$400,000 for a Final Fantasy web series, only to be shut down.)
Yet if this stifled creativity and entrepreneurship was allowed to
run its course, the results would be impressive.

How many writers dream of
seeing their work translated into 24 languages and made into a TV
series, graphic novel, toy line, video game and movie? Fans will do
much of that for free out of love. But add in money as an incentive,
and they'll take on increasingly expensive, complex and
time-consuming projects like the aforementioned Final Fantasy
series.

Yet most creators balk at
the idea of giving fans the freedom to raise $400k for a project, and
here again we run into another deep-seated fear: the idea that someone
else will use the creator's idea to make a zillion dollars, and not
give the creator any of it.

Actually, it's hard for me
to imagine how a creator could NOT make money in such a scenario,
provided that he was smart enough to use a ShareAlike license.
Suppose, for example, that Tolkien was still alive today, and a group
of fans raised $10,000,000 on Kickstarter to create a smash hit LOTR
web series—all without paying him a dime in royalties.
Apparently the expected response is for poor Tolkien to bemoan his
predicament on a street corner as he rattles coins in a tin cup. But
what about the massive publicity boost? What about the fact that new
fans drawn in by the series will be reading Tolkien's books for the
first time in their lives? What about the fact that Tolkien could
write a new story set within the expanded universe of the series and
get a guaranteed audience? What about the fact that under a
ShareAlike license, Tolkien could record his own version of the
series with author commentary, then sell it himself as a special
edition? Even in this, the most-dreaded of all scenarios, there are
tons of opportunities to make money.

But let's make it easier,
shall we? All Tolkien needs to do is change his license terms to
read, "You can make as much profit off your fan work as you
want, but if you make more than $100,000 a year, then you have to pay
me a 5% royalty." So now Tolkien can still make money off the
series in the traditional way, and ambitious fan creators can still
get funding and start working on that new MMO or animated series.
Meanwhile, all the smaller fan creators are not faced with burdensome
profit-reporting requirements that would require them to send over
$0.25 whenever someone dropped a $5 tip in the bucket.

A license with just four
simple rules can overcome almost all of the problems with allowing
fans to monetize their creativity:

ShareAlike—every
idea gets shared with the original creator and all the other fans
who want to use that idea. This prevents lawsuits and keeps good
ideas from being "claimed."

Require fan creators to
give credit to the original creator. This drives new fans to the
original source so that the creator can share in her fans'
prosperity.

Fans should mark their
work as being fan-produced by putting [Fanfic] or [Fan Art] after
the title or thereabouts. This prevents reader confusion and
protects the creator's reputation.

Fans who make more than
$100k a year on their activities must pay a 5% cut of the profits to
the original creator. This gives creators a share of the wealth if
a fan strikes gold, but does not burden casual fan creators with
reporting requirements.

It's time for creators to
let go of their old fears and begin to reap the rewards of the crowd.
Indie creators can benefit from the added attention their fans'
creativity draws to their work, while bestselling creators can take
advantage of hits like 50 Shades to expand the borders of their
franchise into new markets. Give it a try: turn your fans into
business partners, and see what they can do for you.

from the can't-have-anyone-find-this-cash,-could-we? dept

Back in April, we wrote about a really enraged John Steele (famous for his likely leading role in the Prenda scam) angrily hitting back against a sealed motion for contempt against him, arguing that he was lying and hiding assets in his attempt to plead poverty, after a court ordered Team Prenda to file detailed financial statements. They did not do so. Instead, as the court noted:

In the case where there has been no attempt to comply with the Court's order, plaintiff's counsel must show a "complete inability to pay." ... Plaintiff's counsel, "stated differently, . . . [has] the burden of establishing clearly, plainly, and unmistakably that compliance is impossible." ....

The Court finds that plaintiff's counsel has not met its burden. They submitted incomplete, and to say the least suspicious, statements of financial condition. Attached to each statement was a letter from their certified public accountant ("CPA"). In these letters, the CPA indicates a departure from generally accepted accounting principles. He further notes that plaintiff's counsel elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles. The Court finds these statements insufficient to establish plaintiff's counsel's inability to pay.

Following that, lawyers Dan Booth and Jason Sweet filed the motion that got Steele so angry -- highlighting significant evidence that Steele and others had hid money offshore. Steele hit back at that, with little effect, and, as Fight Copyright Trolls now alerts us, the original filing that reveals some of Steele's financial shenanigans has been unsealed. Not surprisingly, it paints a picture of a lot of "shell games" for how the money was moved around. Here's just some of the details:

1. On December 13, 2011, Steele opened a CitiCard account. In the application for the account he identified his income amount as $900,000.00 and his total income for 2011 as $930,000. See Exhibit A hereto.

2. A statement from Fifth Third Bank shows that Steele had $2,177.005.27 in personal savings accounts there on September 5, 2012. See Exhibit B hereto. By September 25, 2012, two deposits totaling that amount had been transferred from Steele’s personal account into
Prenda’s IOLTA account. The remainder of that money was then wired to an unknown destination the next day. See Exhibit C hereto.

3. On December 18, 2012, Prenda Law, Inc. (“Prenda”) paid out $5,000.00 to McCullough Sparks, an asset protection law firm located in Provo, Utah. See Exhibit D hereto. McCullough Sparks promotes its key service as the “541 Trust,” which “removes assets from your personal ownership and from any disclosure of your personal assets. It is a private document and it cannot be discovered through any public records.” See Exhibit E hereto. A CPA would not know about such a trust unless Plaintiffs’ Counsel disclosed it to them.

4. Plaintiff’s Counsel brought this case, like hundreds of others, as part of their coercive litigation settlement practice. See Dkt. No. 61 pp. 14-19. Between 2010 and 2013, when that practice was at its height, BluePay, one of several online credit card processors they used to process settlements from Doe defendants, processed more than $4.4 million in settlement monies, paid out to Prenda, Steele Hansmeier PLLC, Media Copyright Group, LLC, and LiveWire Holdings, LLC. See Exhibit F hereto; see also Dkt. No. 124 p. 4 n.3 (detailing relationships between Plaintiff’s Counsel and these and other non-parties).

5. Smith’s subpoenas sought information about eighteen closely related non-parties. See Dkt. No. 116-1; Dkt. No. 124 p. 4 n. 3. The non-parties opened at least forty-seven bank accounts in just two of the banks subpoenaed since 2010, and have closed all but a few of those accounts. Several of these accounts were opened and shut so quickly as to suggest that Plaintiff’s Counsel have transferred monies between accounts and related entities in a deliberate attempt to obscure its sources and their current holdings. For example, on August 13, 2012, Steele withdrew $29,924.56 from Media Copyright Group, LLC. See Exhibit G. He then opened two Fifth Third Bank accounts in his personal name the same day, depositing $27,924.56 into the account identified in Exhibit H and $2,000 into the account identified in Exhibit I. He then closed the account in Exhibit H on September 25, 2012, transferring all its funds into the other account in Exhibit I, which he closed on January 7, 2013 (after transferring $1,000 to Prenda Law, Inc. on October 2, 2012.).

6. Likewise, on December 15, 2011, John Steele transferred $159,000 from his personal account
to that of Steele Law. See Exhibit J. That same day, Steele Law transferred $160,000 into the
account of Miami Beach Consulting (“MBC”). Id. MBC is a business owned by John Steele’s
wife, Kerry Steele (neé Eckenrode). See Exhibit K. Four days later, $150,000 of that money
was wired to an unknown destination via Sabadell Untd. Bank, a subsidiary of Banco de
Sabadell, S.A. and provider of international banking services.6 Miami Beach Consulting’s
account was closed two months later. See Exhibit L.

7. Duffy and Steele are the two signatories Prenda’s IOLTA and operating accounts with Fifth Third Bank. See Exhibit M hereto. This tends to refute Steele’s repeated denials that he has an ownership interest in Prenda.7 Similarly, and despite his denials otherwise, Paul Hansmeier was a partner in Media Copyright Group (a/k/a/ 6881 Forensics), the IT firm which Plaintiff’s Counsel used to identify alleged infringements. A check made out to Media Copyright Group from Alpha Law and signed by Hansmeier clearly states “capital contribution” “for 50% interest” See Exhibit N hereto.

In the footnotes, it also highlights that the use of "Steele Law" for transferring money is especially suspect, given that Steele claimed that Steele Law was gone as an entity ten months earlier. The filing also discusses money transfers to Latvia, combined with evidence that Steele had been reading about hiding money in Latvia with a program designed to get you a Latvian passport and citizenship.

It's still somewhat circumstantial evidence, but as FCT notes, it's somewhat surprising that Steele apparently missed the deadline to try to keep this particular document sealed...

On top of that, in a second filing, even more questionable moves are revealed. Again, just a snippet:

A. Sabadell Bank.
Smith has identified transactions between accounts owned by Steele and Sierra Investment
Partners (“Sierra”) totaling $212,125.00. See, Ex. Q. Sierra is a business Steele co-owns with Robert
Balzebre that maintains an account at Sabadell Bank. See, Ex. R. Mr. Balzebre has been involved
with Steele in several business ventures going back to 1997—including Steele Hansmeier. See Ex. S.
Continued discovery would clarify the true extent of Steele’s financial holdings.

B. ING.
Hansmeier transferred at least $62,979.00 into an account at ING (now owned by Capital One).
See Ex. T. Similarly, Hansmeier has transferred $515,000 to Monyet LLC with the notation that such
checks were for “estate planning.” See Ex. U. Smith can only surmise that Monyet’s account(s) may
also be found at ING. Said company has no discernible address, officers, employees, products or
services—but a transfer from Livewire indicates who the owner is: “Monyet/Paul Robert
Hansmeier.” Id.

C. Pershing, LLC.
Steele’s frenzied attempt to prevent GMS Group, from complying with discovery though
Smith has not yet subpoenaed them, is now understood. Dkt. No. 158. Documents produced by
Pershing include statements from GMS Group. Pershing is a clearing firm for GMS Group, and while
it has in its possession some documents from GMS Group, it by no means has them all. What Smith
was able to obtain indicates Steele transferred via GMS Group in excess of $200,000.00 to various
accounts, and under at least two other of his business aliases/shell companies to banks with branches
in the US, UK and Canada. See Ex. V.

Remember how, among other things, Judge Wright had referred Team Prenda to the IRS? I wonder if they'll be interested in some of these transactions....